A suspicious pattern is emerging for how the White House handles its most controversial plans

February 18,2017 06:29

"AP reached out to the White House repeatedly beginning 24 hours before publishing this story and also asked the Department of Homeland Security for comment prior to publication," the AP's director of media relations told Business Insider. "We stand by ...and more »

The White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, at the daily White House briefing on January 23. AP Photo/Evan Vucci

The White House quickly denied an explosive Associated Press report published Friday morning that said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was seeking to mobilize 100,000 National Guard troops to round up and deport immigrants living in the US illegally.

"It is false," the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, said, according to a pool report. "It is irresponsible to be saying this. There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants."

"I wish you guys had asked before you tweeted," Spicer added.

An AP reporter, however, replied that the wire service had asked the White House for comment multiple times before publishing the report, which was based off of a leaked DHS draft memo. TheÂ original AP story notes that neither the White House nor the Department of Homeland Security responded to requests for comment.

"AP reached out to the White House repeatedly beginning 24 hours before publishing this story and also asked the Department of Homeland Security for comment prior to publication,"Â the AP'sÂ director of media relations told Business Insider. "We stand by our reporting."

The incident reflects an emerging pattern noted by several top political reporters in how the Trump administration handles its most controversial policy proposals, and undermines the press in the process:

1. Wait for a draft memo of a proposal to be leaked to the press.2. Refuse to comment when asked about the draft.3. Wait to dispute a story's accuracy until the story is published.4. Accuse the press of never having sought comment to begin with.

Trump has followed this pattern closely. In a press conference on Thursday, he dismissed reports about his campaign team's communication with Russia as "fake news," and said that the Wall Street Journal and New York Times had never asked him for comment before publishing their respective stories. BothÂ outlets, however, either included a White House denial or stated that the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Following the AP's report and the White House's rebuttalÂ on Friday, NBC News politics reporter Benjy Sarlin questioned on Twitter why the administration and the DHS waited to deny the report until after it was published, despite apparently being given the opportunity to comment.

New York Times political correspondent Maggie Haberman replied that it was "almost like there's a pattern here."

"These are taxpayer-funded spokespeople," Haberman wrote, referring to the White House and DHS press offices. "If memo is not under serious consideration, why not say it ahead of time?"

"Taxpayer press office that has hours to devote to focusing on palace intrigue stories and profiles does not respond to routine questions," Haberman said.

"1. Get request for comment on a story. 2. Refuse to reply to request for comment. 3. Deny once article is up, and don't mention comment request," Breen tweeted in response to Spicer's statements.

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

"Not answering the AP but then responding to the AP report by saying it's wrong seems like a good way to perpetuate a fake news narrative," New York magazine's White House correspondent, Olivia Nuzzi, tweeted on Friday.

"The very fast, coordinated denial of this story is almost as if they wanted it to hit the wire before shooting it down," Politico's chief White House correspondent, Shane Goldmacher, said.

The White House has not responded to the AP's assertion that it did not respond to requests for comment, and official comments published after the initial AP report have done little to clear up the confusion.

A DHS representative told Business Insider that the AP report was "incorrect" and that the department was "not considering mobilizing the National Guard for immigration enforcement." But another DHS official told Cox Media producer Dorey Scheimer that the immigration memo was "a very early, pre decisional draft... and was never seriously considered by the Department."

A memo published in full by the AP titled "Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies" appears to have been written by DHS Secretary John Kelly and dated to January 25. But it does not mention the AP's estimate that 100,000 National Guard troops would be deployed.

The general confusion stemming from leaked memos and subsequent denials from the administration is not new.

Draft memos outlining changes to the country's "religious freedom" laws that would allow businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community were shot down by the administration shortly after they were leaked, as were memos detailing the possible reinstatement of overseas CIA "black sites."

On both occasions, Spicer said the memos were "not White House documents" and had not yet crossed the president's desk.

On Friday, Spicer contended that the leaked immigration memo published by the AP was "not a White House document," according to the pool report, but acknowledged that he didn't know whether the draft memo had ever been considered by the DHS.

"I don't know what could potentially be out there, but I know that there is no effort to do what is potentially suggested," he said.

The leak of the LGBT memo, meanwhile, allowed Trump's daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner â€” Trump's senior adviser â€” to take credit for "sinking" a plan the administration said "would never have reached the presidentâ€™s desk for his signature" in the first place.

Similarly, Spicer denied that a draft memo leaked last month proposing that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility remain open and that the CIA's secret overseas prisons be reinstated was a White House document.

Responding to the bipartisan backlash over the draft, however, the White House then circulated a revised document among National Security Council staff members that removed language about the black sites being reopened, according to The New York Times.

Washington Post reporters Radley Balko and Louisa Loveluck said on Friday that the leaks themselves appeared to be part of a strategy.